you said two things that i want to dive deeper into. one of them has to do with whitaker not recusing himself. you noted that the department of justice ethics department did suggest that he does recuse himself. they also said it was a close call and, quote, credible arguments could be made either way. why should he remove himself if there s no actual conflict of interest? because you re required to remove yourself when there s an appearance of a conflict of interest. it s not just whether you have an actual conflict but if the public can t have confidence in what you do, that undermines the public faith in our justice system. so when i was a ground level assistant u.s. attorney, i would have had to step aside from anything in which it appeared i was acting improper, whether i was acting improper or not. that ought to apply, in spades,
to the top person at the department of justice. the fact that it was a close call doesn t make it any better. they re saying we recommend you recuse yourself. we re not talking about a garden variety case here. we re talking about the highest profile case in the department of justice, one that more than any other will help form americans opinions that they can trust that the justice department is following the rule of law. every argument that the justice department has made for putting michael cohen in jail applies to donald trump, unquote. what exactly are you saying with that? are you suggesting that the prosecutors in the southern district of new york should indict a sitting president? couple of things. first, if they have proof that individual one directed and coordinated this scheme. they have asserted as much. reporter: they have asserted as much. the rich and powerful can t be
to the top person at the department of justice. the fact that it was a close call doesn t make it any better. the ethics lawyers are saying, this is a close call but we recommend that you recuse yourself. we re not talking about a garden variety case here. we re talking about the highest profile case in the department of justice, one that more than any other will help form americans opinions that they can trust that the justice department is following the rule of law. you said last week that, quote, every argument that the justice department has made for putting michael cohen in jail applies to donald trump, unquote. what exactly are you saying with that? are you suggesting that the prosecutors in the southern district of new york should indict a sitting president? couple of things. first, if they have proof that individual one directed and coordinated this scheme. they have asserted as much. they have asserted as much. if they would prove it, then what it so say that michael
allowed to operate by a separate rule and the argument that donald trump somehow should escape justice. that just doesn t square. there is you know this. for people at home there s an office of legal counsel memo in the department of justice. i think it dates back to the nixon years. it states a sitting president should not be indicted. it s not a rule or a law but it s a suggestion from the justice department. two things. first of all, i was discussing what might happen when he leaves zblofs okay. but actually when you look at the opinions, there is a very powerful case to be made that you can indict a sitting president. there s a more difficult case of whether they should be tried while in office because that would disrupt his activities. but in those olc opinions the only argument that was made was that it would stigmatize the president. they also discussed that rubicon
you said two things that i want to dive deeper into. one of them has to do with whitaker not recusing himself. from the overseeing the special counsel investigation. you noted that the department of justice ethics department did suggest that he does recuse himself. i have to point out, they also said it was a close call and, quote, credible arguments could be made either way. there was no actual conflict of interest that would bar the attorney general from an actual conflict of interest. because you re required to remove yourself when there s an appearance of a conflict of interest. it s not just whether you have an actual conflict but if the public can t have confidence in what you do, that undermines the public faith in our justice system. so when i was a ground level assistant u.s. attorney, i would have had to step aside from anything in which it appeared i was acting improper, whether i was acting improper or not. that same principle that ought to apply, in spades,